Kolkata Court February 1917 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Maharaja Bahadur Sir Prodyat Kumar Tagore and anr. Vs. Maharulla Sanda ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.497
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned District Judge of Rungpore, dated the 17th April 1915, affirming the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The suit was brought to recover rent in arrears. The rent sought to be recovered was at the rate of Rs. 7-15-0 a year for the years 1318 and onwards. The defendant executed a Kabuliyat in which there is a term which is not confined to the present case only, but I have noticed it to exist in many other cases. The tenant promised to agree to pay Rs. 3 5-C as the yearly (payable) talabi rent until the expiry of the term. On the expiry of the term, the rent was stated to be Rs. 7-15-0. In the schedule that precedes the document there is a statement of the rent and the deduction. But the contract in this particular case is quite clear. The yearly talabi rent which the tenant promised to pay was stated to be Rs. 3-5-0 and, on the expiry of the term, it was stated that the tenant agreed to pay according to the above-ment...
Srimati Narainmoyi Dasi and ors. Vs. Umesh Chandra Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.459
1. These two appeals which I deal with in one judgment have been argued at great length, but the point for decision is really a very short one. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the defendant has acquired a limited right as tenant by adverse possession and has accordingly passed a decree affirming the plaintiffs' title and ordering the defendant to pay rent.2. The plaintiffs have appealed. This finding involves two things, namely, an affirmance of the plaintiffs' title and the finding that the defendant has not acquired an absolute title by adverse possession against the plaintiffs. The only question then is whether the Court was entitled to hold that the defendant was a tenant, lie never claimed to be a tenant, His claim was to hold the land under a title of his own. This question, therefore, should never have been entertained. No case is made of the defendant's right in assertion of a limited interest as a tenant. This being excluded and the findings on title as regards th...
iswar Chandra Dey and ors. Vs. Murari Lal Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.472
John Woodroffe, J.1. This is a dispute over a email piece of land which is said to be about 45 feet square and is valued at Rs. 3. The suit is an action in ejectment and both the Courts have found in favour of the plaintiffs. A large number of defences of varying character have been taken, which have all been decided against the present appellants.2. Before us the main point which has been argued is this: It has been found as a fact that the husband of the appellants' vendor died in the year 1897 or 1898 : that he was in possession of an agricultural jote. It is found that his widow inherited this property and actually paid rent to the landlord for this jote for a period of two years. Then, in 1898 to 1899 she appears to have built herself a homestead, and according to the finding of the first Court, which has been confirmed in appeal by the lower Appellate Court, she used this homestead as her own dwelling and lived there. This homestead, therefore, was acquired at a time when accordi...
Dembeswar Sarma Vs. the Collector of Sibsagar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.637
1. This appeal arises out of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the Court below a preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the Collector that the application for reference was barred by limitation at the time it was made. The learned Judge below held that it was barred by limitation and accordingly dismissed the case and the applicant has appealed to this Court.2. As no award was made by the Judge no appeal lies to this Court, because under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act it is only an award or part of an award against which an appeal lies to this Court. The case out of which this appeal arises was Case No. 8 of 1913 in the lower Court and was filed along with two other Cases Nos. 6 and 7 of 1913 and disposed of by the Court below by one and the same judgment; and this Court, on revision, set aside the order of the Court below in the analogous Cases Nos. 6 and 7 on 18th January 1915 in Rules Nisi Nos. 986 and 991 of 1914. Under the circumstances, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›